by Tim Case
Recently by Tim Case: It Can't Happen in America… Oh,Really?
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
~ Sigmund Freud
Danny Glover's recent statement to a Texas A&M audience that: "The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves (meaning the founding fathers) from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans…" is nothing short of liberal tripe. Of all people Glover should know better because the historical facts say just the opposite.
Don Kates a leading authority on the 2nd Amendment counters Glover with the well established foundation for the people's right to keep and bear arms. "The Founders views," Kates reminds us, "on the value of the right to arms began with Aristotle whom they revered as the font of liberal political thought. [For instance, Aristotle, POLITICS 218 (J. Sinclair trans., 1962)]: free government exalts an armed people, but oligarchies and tyrants u2018mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of their arms.'" (Emphasis mine)
We would do well to remember the statement in italics above because the history of firearm laws in U.S. history is less than laudable. In many ways the misuse of firearm laws to deny American citizens, of all races, the ownership of arms is uncomfortably sad and vehemently repugnant.
The sordid history of America's gun control policies is the foundation of American oligarchies' deliberate malicious bigotry, injustice, intolerance and deprivation of American citizen's civil and natural rights. Those Americans which have been most affected have been the black community, American Indians, immigrants, and any minority that has been deemed "undesirable," a threat to large industry, or "religiously inferior".
At this juncture it must be understood that we are not talking about the common man or woman who in their delusional thinking accept that a utopian society can be achieved simply by the absences of firearms. Most if not all of today's "liberals" would be horrified to learn that the "Jim Crow" laws they so routinely denounce are in fact the very product and made possible because of the anti-gun legislation they champion.
This flight of fantasy of those who adhere to anti-gun laws is dealt with in a most enlightening and well researched article written by Rabbi David Bendory, Rabbinic Director, for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) entitled Why Jews Hate Guns.
While Rabbi Bendory is dealing with the Jewish mindset his conclusions are more than applicable to the anti-gun hypocrites within the general population.
Rabbi Bendory elaborates on 10 fatal conditions within the "anti-gun" frame of mind which he identifies as:
- A desire for utopian moral purity
- A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
- A quest for power through victimization of peers
- A utopian delusion that if guns would just "go away," crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
- Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood
- The Ostrich Syndrome
- Garden-variety hypocrisy
- Adulterated religion — Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
- Feel-good sophistry
- Abject fear that yields irrational behavior
If you really want to know what you are dealing with when you talk to friends, family members or neighbors who are of the anti-gun persuasion I highly recommend you read and take to heart the wisdom that Rabbi Bendory imparts in his article.
We are dealing with individuals within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at both the state and federal level who have conspired — along with their money power brokers — to deliberately subdue any group or groups to which they feared losing their power; hated because of their moral persuasions; or stood as a force against illegal proclamations which included murder and overt acts of theft. This egregious assault on any human's natural right to self defense is always draped in the palatable lie of "public safety".
The convoluted thinking of those in power is brought home in the opinion expressed by Florida Justice Rivers H. Buford in the early part of the 20th century who wrote explaining a Florida gun control statute:
"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested."
Note that it is no longer a matter of conjecture, the message is perfectly clear; anti-gun laws were imposed on American citizens. These Americans were disarmed because they were black and an alleged threat to powerful Americans.
Forget that this opinion is based on a man's or woman's skin color; these are free American men and women he is speaking about! Now read it again! This opinion proclaims clearly a declaration of intolerance; if the powers that be feel they can trust you then you are allowed to own a firearm; if they fear you or want something from you — cheap labor — regardless of your skin color, the criminal force of the government will be used against you.
New York's "Sullivan law" went into effect September 1, 1911 and as with any anti-gun legislation it favored some while suppressing others. The sun., August 03, 1919, Section 3 Magazine Section, Page 10 gives us an inside look at what really transpired with the Sullivan law.
"The Sullivan law not only made the possessor of firearms amenable to its punishment clause, but designated a stiff fine and a jail sentence for any person who sold such weapons to any one not possessed of a proper permit. Those citizens who possessed firearms were cautioned to report such ownership to Police Headquarters and, if Police Headquarters deemed it wisdom to allow the registrant to retain the pistol or revolver or whatever it chanced to be, the citizen were given a permit for which he paid a few dollars."
"Doubtless the Sullivan law had its effect. It did not stop gang shootings nor did it stop the acquisition or the ownership of firearms. Furthermore it was used illegitimately by police. A few unfortunate citizens against whom somebody with Influence had a grudge were arrested on trumped up charges and when searched in the police station were found to have one or more revolvers in their possession. It made no difference whether the revolvers were in those pockets when the man was arrested. The fact remained that they were there when he was searched. He was guilty of a violation of the Sullivan law. The police said so and he might squall himself into apoplexy for all the good protest was going to do him. In brief, the gentleman had been framed and the guns planted and he went to jail and his enemies made merry." (Emphasis mine)
This is precisely what the u201CBlack Codesu201D which had been in effect between 1803 and 1860 in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Michigan Territory and now were revived by the Confederate states at the end of the War Between the States, were all about.
The common elements of the "Black Code" are generally accepted as being:
- Race was defined by blood; the presence of any amount of black blood made one black
- Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges
- Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person
- Freedmen were assumed to be agricultural workers and their duties and hours were tightly regulated
- Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write
- Public facilities were segregated
- Violators of these laws were subject to being whipped or branded.
Here again, forget that these "laws" were designed to suppress free black people, they are first and foremost free Americans regardless of their skin color. Now, ask yourself this question. What free armed American would subject himself, or his family to such a satanic law; especially articles #3 (insert government official for white person), #5, and #7 above?
Would you? I know of no one who would. Then for these types of laws to be enforceable the intended victims must first be disarmed, and so it was.
Dave Kopel makes the point for me: "…[T]he Black Codes… explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the terrorist organization Ku Klux Klan, America's first gun control organization. The top item on the Klan's agenda was confiscating arms from the freedmen, the better to terrorize them afterward."
An illustration of how obtuse and dangerous laws against personal ownership of firearms can be comes to us from Richmond Virginia and the Richmond planet., of November 25, 1899. In the article entitled "An Outrageous Decision" we read the following:
The latest outrageous verdict comes from Friars Point, Miss., under date of Nov. 8, 1899, and says that in the case of W. H. Elder (white) manager of the local telephone exchange who was charged with the murder of Burt Ward (colored) the coroners jury returned a verdict that Ward committed suicide by reflecting upon a white man’s character.
There was no denial that Elder literately and premeditatedly shot Ward.
If he had killed or maimed a horse he would have been fined at least $25 besides being required to pay the value of the animal.
We call attention to the fact that this murder was committed in Mississippi, which has disfranchised the Negro.
The Richmond, Va., Times has recently declared that such a remedy is “cure-all” for race troubles. We should like much to read its explanation of this crime, or stand convicted of advocating a policy which will do us much harm and the white man no good.
Colored men must protect themselves as there is no law now in the Southland to protect them.
We believe in owning firearms, and praying to God for the nerve to use them. This kind of “lamb-offering business” has no attraction for us.
Are you beginning to get the picture? Anti-gun laws are not and never have been designed to disarm a citizenry for the purpose of public safety. They are a precursor to far more nefarious laws and actions by government agents all of which have been and will be designed to drive individuals into fear and then submission.
Once disarmed are you absolutely sure that no law will ever be enacted that wouldn't allow government agents to take a hot branding iron and brand you and your family as someone undesirable, a malcontent, a terrorist, a religious fanatic, a homosexual, a patriot, or some other "crime" conjured up in their mentally sick witch's brew? How about a law forcing you to have a RFID chip implanted in you which has been coded with your "crime" rather than being branded?
Think of the control the government would have over your very life if this was the case. Are you sure this won't happen or that isn't part and parcel of their plan?
Don't think it can't happen. It has happened and it has happened in this country see here here and here to list just a few. Maybe it hasn't happened to your race or your religious group but it has happened to American citizens. Men and women who were guaranteed the same rights as you claim for yourself.
For my friends who enjoy disciplines in other shooting sports but who don't own one of those "scary" funny looking rifles and think they can appease the power structure; Don't you understand that they have to divest the American public of all weapons? This has also been a part of American history and at times has become as evil as to include "carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." This is your fight as much as it is anyone else's.
Have you considered the question of why now? Why are those bent on destroying your way of life, your liberties, and your country so resolute at this point in time in disarming you?
Is there something coming that the general public hasn't been made aware of that will drive this nation into armed civil disobedience?
Certainly, many of us are aware that the American economy is faltering and headed for collapse. We are also aware that the American dollar is headed for the dustbin of history. The question as to when either of these events will occur may take years to answer.
Is there something more immediate and in the planning stages that the Federal government wishes to do? Some act so egregious that before it can be accomplished it would necessitate the disarming of the American public?
Certainly it is not the recent murderous death of children. If that were the case, there would have been a hue and cry in the media over the death of those innocent children, by Federal agents, at Waco, Texas.
Why does the present administration feel it is suddenly necessary to have "armed protection" for life?
Is the Federal government planning or hoping to seize American's retirement accounts? Is it the growing freedom movement among America's young?
I don't know, but historically the disarming of citizens within a society has been the precursor to economic chaos or regime change.
One thing is for certain and it comes from the renowned American moral and social philosopher Eric Hoffer who wrote: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you."
It is also reasonable to assume that the power structure did not see the voraciousness with which the American public would respond by continuing to sweep clean the ammunition isles and gun shelves of America's firearm retailers. This act by itself has to compel any would be tyrant to at least pause.
It is more than obvious that the powerful American oligarchy is afraid of an armed American public. This alone is why Americans from all ethnic and religious backgrounds need high capacity magazines and those scary looking modern rifles. As long as Americans are armed, there is a chance we can keep this evil at bay. If you think otherwise history will prove you a fool.
Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D